



?R 4682 
.ftS 
1886 
Copy 2 



GEORGE ELIOT'S TWO MARRIAGES 



¥ 



If 



George Eliot's Two Marriages 



AN ESSAY 

EY 

CHARLES GORDON AMES 



It is better to stir a question without deciding it, than to decide it 
without stirring it — Jouhcrt 



FOURTH EDITION REVISED 



PHILADELPHIA 

GEORGE H BUCHANAN AND COMPANY 
1886 



Y\ 



?-.^ 



l£> 



^'^ 






Copyright 1886 by 

George H Buchanan and Company 

philadelphia 






GEORGE ELIOT'S TWO MARRIAGES 



The reputation of George Eliot has become pre- 
cious. The general suffrage gives her a foremost 
place among those writers of the second class who 
address a far wider audience than the austere few 
of the first class ; and the kind of service she 
has rendered already secures for her the seat she 
coveted in 

"The choir invisible 
Of those immortal dead who live again 
In minds made better by their presence." 

For many of us the revelations of her inner life 
made in the Letters recently published have in- 
creased the sense of personal endearment, as if she 
were one of our great ascended friends. This feel- 
ing may operate as a bias to disqualify us for an 
impartial judgment of her merits as a woman. But 
the questions raised by her two marriages, and 
especially by the first, no longer concern her so 
much as they concern modern society and the moral 
health of the race. There is no more exact measure 



6 George Eliot's Tiuo Marriages 

of human progress than the growth of dehcacy 
between men and women, and of purity and con- 
stancy in their domestic relations. 

One who is duly mindful of the sanctity of the 
family would be obliged to say, that if George Eliot 
had willingly violated that sanctity by a loose exam- 
ple, this one fact would not only blast her reputation 
as^ woman, but would do vastly more harm than 
all the wisdom and power of her genius as an author 
could do good. 

It would still be true that her writings should be 
judged by their merits. Much excellent literary 
work has been done by men who were not noble 
nor pure ; Seneca put better morals into his writings 
than into*his life. Rousseau was not clean ; even 
Dr. Johnson felt obliged to say, " I have written 
well, but, ah, I have not lived well." Nobody ques- 
tions the superiority of Raphael's pictures on account 
of the stories that are told to his discredit. And if 
we were obliged to read Marian Evans out of good 
society, it would still be true that George Eliot's 
books have adorned and enriched the 19th century. 

But it shocks our moral sense to know that a 
favorite author is wanting in personal rectitude ; we 
are obliged to forget him in order to enjoy his works. 
We would gladly require of a writer just what we 
have a right to require of .a preacher : — that he be 
as good as his word. It is well to require it, even 
if the requisition is not always honored. 



George Eliofs Tiuo Marriages y 

?klr. Cross' Life of George Eliot gives the impres- 
sion of one who, despite some weaknesses, was 
greater as a woman than as an author. She has 
created no character in fiction equal to this uncon- 
scious portraiture of herself While her relations 
to Mr. Lewes are certainly open to question, it 
Avould be a relief to many minds if this passage in 
her history could truly be presented in such a light 
as to clear our estimate of her womanhood from 
misgivings ; for all noble reputations are historic 
treasures. It can never be so important to vindicate 
a person as to clear up and establish a principle of 
right. The main object of this paper, however, is 
to consider whether this admitted irregularity of her 
marriage should seriously impair our respect for 
her character. 

In 1854, Marian Evans, then in her 36th }'ear, and ^ 
afterwards known in literature as George Eliot, 
united her life with that of George Henry Lewes, 
and this union continued for twenty-four years, till 
his death in 1878. Their acquaintance began in 
those common literary pursuits to which their joint 
existence was afterwards devoted. 

Were they married ? They had no doubt of it ; 
for nearly a quarter of a century they lived together 
in rare harmony, happiness, and helpfulness, though 
shadowed by the sense of something like a social 
tragedy. There was no formal wedding, no religious 
or civil ceremony, no legal record or recognition. 



8 George Eliofs Tivo Marriages 

There could be none ; for, in law, Mr. Lewes was 
still the husband of another woman. 

On some bearings of the case, in the absence of 
anything like a legal or other inquiry, in the absence 
of sifted and recorded evidence, it is not possible to 
pronounce a confident judgment. No friend of the 
first Mrs. Lewes appears in her vindication ; and 
Mr. Lewes preserved a prudent silence concerning 
her conduct and his own ; he may have been glad to 
escape the scandal of a case in court for reasons 
generous or selfish. We are relieved from the sad 
confidences of both parties ; yet rumors have survived. 

So far as it can now be made out, the situation 
was something like this : Mr. Lewes had married 
early. An experiment in co-operative housekeeping 
exposed both husband and wife to unusual tempta-^ 
tions. She consorted with another man ; he forgave 
her and took her back ; and when she repeated the 
offence and left him finally and forever, and left also 
their three children to his sole care, he had no legal 
remedy. His condonation of her first offence worked 
a forfeiture of his right of divorce for the second ; 
thus does the law punish the husband's magnanim- 
ity ! * It is also said that his wife's conduct was 

* This statement is discredited by an American lawyer. But the 
main fact remains, that a legal remedy was entirely beyond the reach 
of Mr. Lewes. Thirty years ago, divorce could only be procured by 
special act of Parliament, with preliminary proceedings which some- 
times cost $10,000 in fees. 



George Eliot's Two Marriages 9 

" not without his permission and sympathetic sanc- 
tion," and that the whole story was known to 
Marian Evans. This statement is extremely im- 
probable, and the witness is an anonymous writer in 
Temple Bar,^^ who discloses a malignant animus. It 
is not so easy to discredit the uncontradicted reports 
which make Mr. Lewes a London Bohemian of 
doubtful precedents, and of no secure social standing. 
He was a man of unattractive appearance, but with 
wonderful eyes, and brilliant social powers. He had 
also gained a fair literary reputation, was known as 
the author of a four-volumed Biographical History 
of Philosophy, and had now become the editor of 
the Leader. Miss Evans saw in him what he after- 
wards proved to be — a strong and clear-minded 
man, a serious student, whose affinities and aspira- 
tions drew him toward higher levels. When their 
acquaintance began, she was ma.naging editor of the 
Westminster Revieiu, the organ of radical thinking, to 
which he was an acceptable contributor. In respect 
to religious and social traditions, they had both 
reached conclusions which placed them in a minority 
of the minority. She saw in him a wronged and 
wifeless man, with unmothered children ; she pitied 
his deep, personal misery, while she respected his 
manhood; respect and pity ripened into love — a true 
and deathless passion ; and, with her eyes wide open 

* Anonymity is not here mentioned reproachfully. None of the 
articles in Temple Bar are signed. 



lo George Eliofs Two Marriages 

to the situation, she became his wife, the woman to 
whom he was legally bound still living. Was it 
right ? The question itself is less simple than it 
appears : the answer may be a qualified one. We 
shall at least educate our judgment a little by prac- 
tice on a complication of facts. 

Such a case brings into sharp contrast the various 
theories of divorce : 

1. The Roman Catholic theory, which forbids 
divorce altogether, except in rare cases, and under 
papal dispensation. Ever since the Council of Trent, 
which was dominated by extreme sacramental ten- 
dencies, the Church has held marriage indissoluble 
except by death. Separation is permitted ; but not 
even the innocent party may marry again. This view 
is not confined to Catholics. Frederic Harrison, the 
champion of Positivism and Agnosticism, and the 
personal friend of George Eliot and of Mr. Lewes, is 
the stout advocate of the indissolubility of marriage, 
even by death itself Many accredited moralists hold 
that the only way to dignify the marital relation and 
to prevent hasty engagements, is by laying down 
the principle that there shall be no absolute divorce; 
/. e. no remarriage while both parties live. 

2. The prevailing Protestant theory, resting on a 
construction of the teaching of Jesus, (Matt, xix : 9,) 
denies divorce, except for the single cause of sexual 
infidelity. The English law, like that of New York, 
permits divorce only for this offence ; and if the 



George Eliot's Tzvo Marriages II 

wife be tlie petitioner, she must also prove cruelty 
or desertion. 

3. A third theory affirms that marriage is nulli- 
fied and divorce justifiable whenever either party has 
committed a fatal breach of the contract. While 
unfair constructions of this tlieory have opened the 
door to dangerous laxity, its advocates hold it clearly 
defensible on grounds of public welfare, of private 
right, and of the highest morality. 

The civil law, in recognizing and protecting mar- 
riage, acts as the guardian of social order and of the 
personal rights of husbands, wives, and children. 
Its function is chiefly to define and declare. It can 
declare the validity or invalidity of marriage, but can 
do nothing to ijive it vitalitv. Least of all can it 
restore to life a marriage which is dead. Divorce, 
as an easy off-hand way of settling cases of ordinary 
infelicity, is justly deprecated; }'et it is the natural 
and proper corrective of extreme evils which can 
be reached by no other remed\'. Laxity of marriage 
is the real evil, originating in the frivolity of the 
times and the superficial quality of our civilization. 

So long as these extreme and ghastly cases, of 
false and unreal marriages are frequent, separations 
will be frequent ; and if the law should refuse to 
release such wretched couples by divorce, there is 
a high degree of probability that something worse 
than orderly remarriage will be very common. If 
there was divine wisdom in the Mosaic legislation. 



12 George Eliot's Two Marriages 

which accommodated itself to the actual condition 
of a semi-barbarous people, because of the hard- 
ness of their hearts, may not the same wisdom still 
frame laws suited to the imperfect condition of 
humanity ? Not the less, but all the more, should 
the lovers of purity toil and pray for the redemption 
of the race from all this profanation. 

As guardian of the sanctities, religion speaks : 
" What God hath joined together let not man put 
asunder." But what of those whom God hath not 
joined ? or those from whose nominal union every 
divine element has vanished ? May it not be profane 
to hold Heaven responsible for false, foul, unreal or 
disorderly relations between men and women, inside 
of marriage as well as outside ? Not for light rea- 
sons — not in haste even for heavy reasons — may 
society consent to the destruction of a household 
once formed ; but there may be cases where it is a 
sad wrong not to decree the separation which, for 
sufficient reasons, has already accomplished itself 
Why not deal frankly and fairly with those condi- 
tions which are just as fatal to marriage as death 
itself, and hardly less repulsive than binding the 
living to the dead ? 

The law of reason and right is not always hon- 
ored by our harsh and arbitrary constructions ; and 
a false austerity is often .i:he parent of laxity. Jesus 
condemns the man who puts away his wife and 
marries another; but this language does not describe 



George Eliot's Tzco Marriages 13 

the case where the woman withdraws herself, repu- 
diates her vows and forms other relations. It does 
not appear that the early Christians gave an ascetic 
construction to their Master's teaching. If the 
heathen spouse chooses to depart, says Paul, " a 
brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases ; " 
but the believer who took the initiative in departing 
was enjoined not to marry again. It is on this point 
of marrying again that the main difficulty arises. 

To understand and feel the profound shock given 
to the moral sensibilities of the better classes in 
England, by Marian Evans's non-legal relations 
with Mr. Lewes, we must remember that for a thous- 
and years the whole nation has been grounded, 
schooled and trained not only in the Christian theory 
that marriage is sacred, " for better, for worse," but 
also in the practice of that theory under religious 
and legal sanctions. Nearly everybody has come 
to think of the prescribed artificial formality as vital 
to the relation ; and who but the most reckless radi- 
cal could dream of its dissolution being valid without 
the law's consent? 

For a time the Society of Friends w^as exposed to 
cruel misunderstanding and persecution by its reso- 
lute refusal to recognize the service of a minister or 
magistrate. English opinion said that the union of 
hearts, hands and destinies does not constitute mar- 
riage ; the Church and State must constitute it; and 
what the Church has blessed and the State has 



14 George Eliot's Tiuo JMarriagcs 

recognized is man"ia<je, whether there is a union of 
hearts or not. When the Friends were reheved from 
embarrassment by an act of Parhament, the prece- 
dent was estabhshed that any scrupulous man or 
woman, who have a right to each other, may marry 
themselves. But no act of Parliament has ever 
given to married people the right to unmarry. The 
power of divorce rests alone with public authority. 
An acute moralist might press this awkward ques- 
tion : If the law of nature is sufficient for marrying, 
why is it insufficient for divorce ? But here come 
in broad considerations of public order — the safe- 
guards of the family, the rights of children — which 
the acute moralist may not always weigh. 

I only pause now to say, that questions of legislative 
policy are not always questions of exact right ; they 
have two sides, and are always open to argument. 

Mr. Hutton, an able and reputable English writer, 
in an article on " George Eliot," pronounces her 
union with Mr. Lewes " a grave step downward ; 
* * * a breach with a moral law which the great 
majority of men hold to be the essence of social 
purity." Clearly it was a breach of the civil law ; 
but to make it also a breach of the moral law, must 
we not convict the parties of something like wrong- 
ful intent? What if -on their part and in their own 
minds it was simply a refusal' to identify the moral 
law with the law of Parliament? What if they 
simply meant to affirm that where the fact of sep- 



George Eliot's Ttuo Marriages 15 

aration is fully accomplished, the rt'rrrr^' of separation, 
howev'cr desirable, is not vital ? Such a position 
may not be tenable, but it is at least intelligible, and 
might be held and acted on in perfect good ^faith. 
If the general reason and conscience should ratify 
the judgment of Mr. Hutton, a dark stain and shadow 
must rest on the name of George Eliot. But let us 
look at her conduct from all its human sides. Whom 
did she wrong by taking Mr. Lewes to be her 
husband? 

Was any wrong done to the former wife ? If the 
facts are correctly given, she had no just claim to 
wifehood, no moral right to it, and probably not the 
faintest wish for it. It was all the same as if she had 
been dead. 

Was wrong done to this woman's children ? The 
three boys were motherless. _ George Eliot became 
their mother in the deep, true sense. She gave them 
her love and won theirs. She earned money for 
their education, helped to bring them up in wisdom 
and virtue, watched tenderly over Thornton's dying 
pillow, had the satisfaction of seeing Charles become 
an honorable scholar and husband and father, treated 
him as a son in the final disposition of her property, 
and was by him given in marriage to Mr. Cross, her 
second husband. 

Did she wrong Mr. Lewes ? His love for her with 
her love for him was like a spiritual rescue ; it saved 
him from misery and despair. In 1859 he wrote of 



1 6 George Eliot's Tzvo Marriages 

his debt to Herbert Spencer : " It was through him 
that I learned to know Marian — to know her was to 
love her — and since then my life has been a new 
birth. To her I owe all my prosperity and all my 
happiness." Through their whole life together his 
devotion was that of a lover. In all matters he was 
her judicious counsellor and glad servant, and under 
her encouragement, his own faculties as a student 
rallied from depression and became powerfully 
creative. He took a leading part in scientific 
research and philosophic discussion ; and reached 
the high honor of being named in connection with 
the Rectorship of the University of St. Andrews. 

Did she wrong herself? The quickening effect of 
her marriage on her spirits, character, and genius, is 
among the beautiful marvels of soul-history. To 
say that it made her happy would be no adequate 
justification. There is a kind of happiness which 
dishonors and degrades — the happiness of those 
who love " downwards and not up." But it would 
confound all our notions of moral order to discover 
a single instance in which a false and debasing 
marriage became the means of spiritual enrichment, 
mental elevation, and enlargement of character. 

If her own testimony may be accepted, her mar- 
riage was like the coming of the summer's sun to all 
her faculties. I will recite the. inscriptions placed by 
her own hand on the manuscripts of her successive 
books, for they have a kind of monumental interest: 



George Eliot's Two Marriages ly 

AdiDii Bcdc : ''To my dear Husband, George Henry 
Lewes, I give this IMS. of a work wliich would never have 
been written but for the happiness which his love has con- 
ferred on my life." 

Mill on the Floss: "To my beloved Husband, Georg-e 
Henry Lewes, I give this MS. of my third book, written in 
this sixth year of our life together, at Holly Lodge, South 
Field, Wandsworth, and finished 21st March, 1860." 

Romola: "To the Husband whose perfect love has been 
the best source of her insight and strength, this MS. is given 
by his devoted wife, the writer." 

Spanish Gypsy: " To my dear — every day dearer — Hus- 
band." 

Middlcniarch : "To my dear Husband, George Henry 
Lewes, in this I'.lth year of our blessed union." 

Daniel Deronda : " To my dear Husband, George Henry 
Lewes. 



For thy sweet love remembered such wealth brings 
That then I scorn to change my state with kings." 

To her friend Barbara Bodichon — the only per- 
son who penetrated the disguise of her anonymity — 
she wrote in happy freedoin about the encouragement 
her husband had given to her earhest attempts at 
fiction, and how he laughed and cried and rushed to 
kiss her as she read to him from the manuscript. 
" He is the prime blessing that has made all the rest 
possible to me, giving me a response to everything 
I have written * * * a proof that I had not mis- 
taken my work." 

But for the powerful inspiration for good which 
came into her life from her marriage, it is extremely 



1 8 • George Eliot" s Two Marriages 

doubtful whether George Eliot would ever have 
found her true self; whether her genius would ever 
have come to flower and fruit ; whether we should 
ever have heard of her as woman or author. Could 
this inspiration for good have been the outcome of 
conscious, willful sin ? 

The writer in Temple Bar is very prompt to 
recognize and emphasize this dependence of George 
Eliot's mind upon the support and stimulant of love 
and sympathy. He finds in it a proof that she had 
no strength of character; like other women, she 
lacked originality or initiating power. He allows 
that she had a great mind, " a superb intelligence," 
and characterizes her earlier books as " shining 
mountains; " but in what he calls the " meagre and 
dreary " volumes of her Life and Letters, he sees 
few signs of moral nobleness. She is greedy of 
money, morbidly anxious for praise and fame, selfishly 
"jealous and dependent." Her temporary refusal 
to go to church is her " only recorded act of aggres- 
sive conscientiousness ; " her part in society is that 
of ?iposeuse, posing for qualities which have no real 
root in her character ; in short, a much overrated 
person, tricked out and presented to the public with 
quite artificial glories by her two husbands. 

Mr. Lewes is described as a resojute and success- 
ful adventurer, who made a gdod "job " of his life, 
and profited to the utmost in a worldly way by his 
partnership with this intellectual prodigy, for whose 



George Eliot's Tivo Marriages 19 

sake he suppressed himself, the more willingly be- 
cause her productions proved marketable. George 
Eliot's career is thus explained as a rare run of 
fortune, rather than as a triumph of merit. Her 
union with Mr. Lewes is made to appear as a common- 
place falling in love of two persons who could not 
marry, and so chose to live in chronic adultery. 
They ran no great social risks, as she had no 
reputation to speak of, and his was already lost. 
This writer concludes by intimating that he could 
tell a great deal more if he cared to, but the true 
" story will never be known, for those who could 
tell the truth will be silent, and those who do not 
know it would not believe it, if told." Just how 
much credit ought we to give to an aanknown 
witness who deals in insinuations, and who seems 
never to allow a worthy motive, if he can invent an 
unworthy one? If, as he says, England was full of 
gossips, who manufactured unreal glory for George 
Eliot and made an idol of her, may there not have 
been other busybodies who took delight in circu- 
lating detractions and nasty lies ? Such things 
have been known. 

A few scanty hints are enough to show that 
George Eliot's irregular and informal marriage cost 
her much mental suffering, despite its happy results. 
She made no outcry ; but in some of her letters are 
allusions which let us know that she felt the hurt 
of being cut and condemned by many former 



20 George Eliofs Tn'o Marriages 

friends. She carried herself with quiet dignity ; she 
blamed no one for blaming her; but she was careful 
to invite none to her house unless they first sought 
the invitation ; and once she draws aside the domes- 
tic curtain far enough to let us know that her husband 
and herself were tempted to declare they would 
"never have any more friends, only acquaintances." 
That stateliness of manner which was so impressive 
to her company may have been due in part to an 
under-consciousness that her position was ques- 
tioned. 

But she was too much absorbed in work to waste 
time or strength in painful broodings. Besides, her 
marriage was its own protection ; she rested in the 
love which surrounded her like an atmosphere ; she 
found in her husband a constant support and incite- 
ment, a near and trusted counsellor, capable of clear 
insight as well as of close sympathy ; and this support 
became more and more necessary to her life, as one 
after another she brought forth her books with 
anguish of travail, almost swooning with exhaustion 
and ever falling into doubt and despair of doing 
anything more. From childhood, she had dwelt 
apart, solitary in society, her aspirations crippled by 
self-distrust, yet craving and giving no end of love. 
This profound reserve and withdrawal may help to 
explain her non-conformity. She was not lawless, 
but more than most women she lived out of the 
reach of conventional influences and standards. She 



George Eliot's Tzvo MarriagtS 21 

could not hold the traditional theories of marriage 
any more than of religion. But her non-conformity 
did not spring from lawlessness, caprice or willful- 
ness, much less from lower impulses. Her whole life 
and character, every sign and trace found in her 
letters and private journal, testify that she was 
superior to any loose or base action. The Edinbnrg 
Revieiu \\hich reprobates her marriage, yet says : 
" She was a high-minded woman, with whom no 
thought or inclination that was less than pure had 
ever been connected. It is impossible but that she 
must have thought over, and somehow justified to 
herself, the tremendous step she took." Certainly 
she counted the cost. She writes to IVIrs. Bray : 
" From the majority of persons, of course we never 
looked for anything but condemnation." 

Her own theory of marriage itself — legalities 
aside — was so lofty and spiritual that on this subject 
she has become one of the teachers of mankind. 
Even the cynic of Temple Bar says, " She wTote the 
most eloquent defence of marriage in our language, 
and vaunted its sacredness and quasi-indissolubility 
in terms which w^ould have satisfied a Roman 
Catholic." She was shocked and disgusted at the 
publication of the Byron scandal because of its 
probable effect on the minds of the young. Indeed 
her views of all human relations were of the most 
exalted kind. She exacted of herself the most 
rigid fidelity to the highest standard ; rather, she did 



22 George Eliot's Two Marriages 

not need to exact it ; her natural tastes and tenden- 
cies made it easy. 

We are told that in a class of cases, we must 
judge the action by what we know of the man, and 
not the man by a doubtful action. We must say of 
George Eliot's marriage that no portion of her life 
was more completely justified to herself, or more 
honorably carried out, or more blessed in its results 
to herself and others. Whatev^er judgment we may 
feel obliged to pass on the wisdom or the rightful- 
ness of such marriages generally, we must, in this 
matter, acquit George Eliot, entirely and uncon- 
ditionally, of all wrong in her guiding principles, 
her motive, her spirit. She regarded the former 
marriage as dead, yet forbidden by law to be 
declared dead. All the facts go to show that she 
stepped into the empty place of wife and mother in 
perfect good faith, from the most honorable prompt- 
ings of her heart, and with the entire approval of 
her reason. Why cannot Mr. Hutton have the 
fairness to allow so much, even if he thinks she was 
mistaken in her judgment? He does allow that both 
before and after taking this " grave step downward " 
there was no appearance of deterioration in her 
character; and it is a remarkable fact that while at 
the time most of her early friends fell away, her 
home graduall}^ became the centre and frequent 
resort of many of the foremost representatives of 
English culture, and that she and her husband were 



George Eliot's Txvo Marriages 23 

honored with the friendship of Tennyson, Lytton, 
Herbert Spencer, and many others of the highest 
social standing. The writer in Temple Bar seems 
annoyed that while " living thus [in adultery] she 
was courted by the chief and most responsible men 
of the time, and by the best and most strait-laced 
women." He says they tried to make themselves 
believe all sorts of myths, as fig-leaves to cover her 
shame or disguise the real situation. But the more 
generous view is the more just. This resorting to 
her of the best people does not imply that they 
acquitted her of indiscretion, but it does imply that 
they acquitted her of intentional wrong ; they did 
not look on her as a dishonored or dishonorable 
woman, or they would have shunned her house. 
Mr. Harrison, for many years the intimate friend of 
both, says : " He was a witness of the unbroken 
happiness of their joint life, of their affectionate 
performance of every domestic duty ; of their 
scrupulous observance of all that they recognized 
as belonging to a pure and refined home." Yet he 
deeply regrets that they could not pledge their lives 
with his " to fortifying in every way the marriage 
bond and making it indissoluble by law, indissoluble 
even by death." 

We have yet to seek an answer for this most seri- 
ous question : Did she wrong society by her irregu- 
lar marriage ? Some would reply : " No ; society 
wronged her and her husband by the tyrannical law 



24 George Eliot's Tzvo Marriages 

against which their marriage was a costly protest." 
But this may be a too hasty foreclosure. In the 
tangle of human affairs, there is sometimes an ap- 
parent contradiction between private and public 
right. An act which springs from the best motives 
and which is wholly approved as seen from within 
and from the actor's point of view, may yet be in- 
jurious to public interests, and therefore unsafe as a 
precedent. Even if we may allow that strong- 
winged and clear-seeing spirits can rise above con- 
ventionalities and strike out clean, wide paths 
through purer spaces, we must not forget that the 
whole movement of human society is on lower levels 
and along crowded ways, where the rule of the road, 
" Keep to the right," though arbitrary, is necessary. 

Every exceptional instance becomes an educator 
to our moral sense, our discriminating facult}'. 
George Eliot excused those who blamed her, be- 
cause she knew " how subtle and complex are the 
influences which mould opinion." Perhaps she may 
have need of the same just charity for herself 

The world was shocked by the execution of "old 
John Brown." Why shocked ? Had he not vio- 
lated the laws of the land, dippedhis hands in blood, 
and forfeited his life ? Yes ; yet everybody was 
obliged to look behind his aet to the motive. The 
worst that could be said was, that he was wrong- 
headed, deluded to the over-doing of his duty.* 
Everybody saw that he was right-hearted, and that 



George Eliot's Tivo Marriages 25 

the act which was outwardly illegal was inwardly 
humane and glorious. Histor}- is full of these con- 
tradictions. 

We must look at an act both from its inside and 
its outside. We have looked at George Eliot's mar- 
riage from its inside, and have found it sweet and 
pure, so far as the facts are disclosed to us ; we have 
found it an ideal and idyllic union in its honorable 
love, its spiritual clasp, its mutual satisfactions, its 
inspiring power to qualify both parties for helpful- 
ness to each other and to mankind. When we come 
to look at it from the outside, it appears lawless and 
disorderly, wrong in form and socially unfortunate. 
It can never be justified on public grounds nor ap- 
pealed to as a wise and safe precedent. Every simi- 
lar case must be challenged precisely as if this case 
had never occurred. Without staying to vindicate 
or examine the local law of England, we must say 
for marriage laws in general, that society can never 
with safety consent to the removal or disregard of 
those barriers which were erected because they were 
necessary, as they still are, to resist the ever-rising 
flood of disorders and corruptions. 

If we allow that there is need of law at all to 
define, regulate and protect marriage, we must also 
allow that the law must express the existing and 
prevailing convictions of society in any given coun- 
• try ; and, while it is the right and duty of every man 
and woman to agitate for the improvement of the 



26 George Eliofs Tzvo Marriages- 

laws, only a case of extreme hardship and injustice 
can justify a citizen in violating them. No thought- 
ful person will say that the essence of marriage con- 
sists in its legalization : every thoughtful person 
must say that each instance of non-legal marriage, 
like each instance of illegitimate parentage, tends to 
disintegration and demoralization. 

I cannot suppose that the discredit under which 
George Eliot was placed in the minds of her friends 
was due altogether to cowardice, or to mere tradi- 
tional conformity. It sprang from a true instinct, 
which is the product of many ages of moral culture. 
In resigning herself to their censure, she acted so 
far in the spirit of Socrates, who, though conscious 
of innocence, yet honored the court which con- 
demned him to die for violating the laws of Athens. 

Looked at externally, George Eliot's marriage 
wore an ambiguous look which she must have deeply 
regretted. It invited criticism ; it exposed her to 
unpleasant remark ; it might be quoted by men and 
women of loose principles as a sort of justification. 
Why may not any man live with any woman who 
consents, regardless of legal forms ? To a class of 
minds, even the beauty and happiness of George 
Eliot's marriage supplies a plausible weapon for at- 
tackinif the safecjuard which law has thrown around 
a hundred million households." Thas very class, too, 
has most need of the restraint of the law which she 
defied. 



George Eliot's Tzuo Marriages 27 

No one of us — no two of us — can have a right to 
set up a world of our own and legislate privately for 
our own lives, so long as we are dwelling in the com- 
munity. We ought not to wish to escape from the 
wholesome restraint which comes from the eyes and 
the criticism of our fellows ; we ought gladly to en- 
large and enlighten our private judgment by the 
breadth and radiance of the common mind, and cer- 
tainly we are bound to adjust our relations and regu- 
late our conduct in conformity with principles which 
will promote the common weal. 

To what conclusion does this inquir}'' conduct us? 
What verdict does the preponderance of evidence 
warrant? Where does it leave George Eliot and 
her reputation ? It leax^es her womanly purity and 
honor unstained and bright. It condemns her act 
as inconsistent with the welfare of society. It ac- 
quits her as we acquit Stonewall Jackson — a true 
patriot from the stand-point of Virginia and of his 
own conscience — a traitor for taking up arms against 
his country. The countr}- honqrs his character 
"^vhile it condemns his act. 

In one respect, George Eliot's marriage, like 
Stonewall Jackson's militar\' career, gives me un- 
mixed satisfaction. It was a rare display of self- 
possession and soul-courage. Having taken her 
resolution deliberately, she stood by it and faced the 
painful consequences without whimpering". She 
carried herself through the days of trial, as through 



28 George Eliot's Tzuo Alarriagcs 

the years of exhausting toil, with dignity, as if hid- 
den in some secret paviHon from the strife of 
tongues. Even an ignoble deed sometimes acquires 
a certain lustre from its display of masterfulness. 
Robert Browning has taught us that even in going 
the wrong road we may as well set the foot down 
firmly. All character collapses from doing things 
by the halves. 

"The sin I impute to each frustrate ghost 
Is the unlit lamp, and the ungirt loin." 

If one will live by the inward law, it will not do to 
heed the popular noises. As we honor John Brown 
for daring to throw himself against the citadel of 
slavery, though in a Quixotic passion of humanity, 
so may we honor George Eliot for her courageous 
fidelity to her bosom counsel. High and holy in- 
spirations may be quite independent of the correct- 
ness of our judgment; and right in the midst of 
disorderly conditions there may work a cosmic 
principle, a redeeming power of good. There is one 
rule to which we need make no exception: Having 
chosen our path in the clearest light that is given, 
let us travel it to the end, regardless of clamor. 
Serenity and safety and success are only to be found 
in mindino; our own business. 



George Eliot's Tzvo Marriages 29 

What a curious questioning feeling people have 
about second marriages ! And the feeling increases 
directly and with rapid intensity as marriages multi- 
ply. A western widower was condoled with by his 
neighbor on this wise : " I know what affliction 
means. I am living with my fifth wife." And the 
lone windower's face lighted up with a smile. A 
New England woman expressed her indignation be- 
cause the widow So-and-so was about to be mar- 
ried a third time. " But," said her friend, " if your 
house burns down, wouldn't you build another?" 
" May-be I should," was the reply, "but if I'd been 
burned out twice, I should think 'twas time to go 
to boarding." 

A second marriage is sometimes justified by the 
failure of the first. Oftener it is a strong testimony 
to the happiness of the first. The survivor finds life 
empty and desolate till 'the affections clasp another 
object. George Eliot's marriage with Mr. Cross was 
of this kind. It produced a revulsion of feeling at 
the time among people who knew nothing about it, 
but who were no less ready with their opinions and 
guesses. Probably many of her friends were dis- 
turbed, since Mr. Cross was not known and it 
was feared that she had taken up with an inferior 
person. In some ways he was not her equal ; but 
the wisdom and good taste he has shown as her 
biographer have raised him to eminent favor. He 
appears as a gentleman in all the best senses. His 



30 George Eliot's Tzvo Marriages 

treatment of dead and living has been delicate and 
magnanimous. 

He was no new or hasty comer into George 
Eliot's regards, and there was nothing frivolous in 
their relations. She had known him for ten years ; 
there had been a pleasant intimacy between the 
families, and they had been drawn closer by com- 
mon trials, sickness and death. The man who had 
been a trusted friend of her husband and herself, and 
who had interested himself in their business affairs, 
rendered kindly and generous service in her day of 
dire weakness and need, when she felt herself " a 
bruised creature, shrinking from the tenderest 
touch," and his companionship and support became 
more and more necessary. The presence of this 
strong man seemed to take out the numbness of her 
pain and partially restore her lost life. She believed 
in human guardian angels and needed them. He 
was completely engrossed ; she sufficiently interested 
to find his companionship restful, healing, strength- 
ening, restorative. She seems to have been sur- 
prised at the renewal of her own life, "the re-open- 
ing of the fountain of affection " — for she had almost 
entered the grave with her husband. She was not 
fickle to the old love ; she confessed that " deep 
down below there was a hidden river of sadness." 
But she said, " I shall be a better, nhore loving crea- 
ture than I could in solitude." To Charles Lewes 
she wrote, " I was getting hard ; and if I had de- 



George Rliofs Two Marriages 31 

cided differently, I think I should have become very 
selfish. To feel daily the loveliness of a nature close 
to me, and to feel grateful to it, is the fountain of 
tenderness and of strength to endure." That is, she 
married from gratitude to her rescuer — the man who 
could help her bear life. In her depressed condition 
she writes to Mrs. Congreve, " I have been cared for 
with something much better than angelic tender- 
ness." To Mrs. Bray she wrote of "this miraculous 
affection that had chosen to watch over her," as if it 
had actually saved her life. 

From her own accounts, she was never self-de- 
pendent, always feeling after a human support and 
leaning on it implicitly. S3'mpathy was necessary 
as air ; yet she was incapable of many intimacies, 
suffered from exposure to much society, was obliged 
to avoid mankind in order to serve mankind ; and 
yet was quite unable to live alone. This trait was 
only intensified by her great loss. Her loneliness 
was of no ordinary kind. She inhabited this world 
without half living in it. In her widowhood, the 
sound of her own fame must have been mournful 
to her. Mrs. Browning makes Aurora Leigh cry 
out — 

" O, my God, my God ! 
Thou hast knowledge, only thou, 
How dreary 'tis for women to sit still, 
On winter nights, by solitary fires. 
And hear the nations praising them, far off." 



32 George Eliot's Tivo Marriages 

She had spoken of her former experience as her 
" one perfect love." There could be nothing of the 
ideal in this second marriage — the union of a feeble, 
failing woman of sixty with a man much younger — 
a grouping which never makes a successful picture. 
There was no room for romance, no feeling left for 
it. She herself must have felt like one who in weak- 
ness accepts the strong arm of one who is generous 
enough not to exact what it was not in her power to 
give. But she surrendered herself to the new life 
with a sort of childish delight ; and perhaps found 
in the public wedding and the open recognition that 
she was now a lawful wife a new and gratifying ex- 
perience. 

She was married May 6, 1880 — five years ago to- 
day, — and died December 22, of the same year. 
None can grudge her the bright little streak of sun- 
hght that gilded the hastening evening. 

But this portrayal of her second marriage does not 
present her at her best — hardly at her second best. 
There is nothing to move admiration, much to pity. 
We see her almost clutching in her weakness at out- 
side support as if the inward resources had failed, 
and contenting herself with receiving a kind of 
idolatrous affection for which she could offer no 
equivalent. 

In the light of the memoir itself, I believe the 
thoughtful reader must see a revelation of her de- 
clining and almost exhausted life ; a weakness 



George Eliot's Tivo Marriages 33 

partly to be referred to broken health and heavy 
sorrow, but still more to the fact that she had 
neglected and starved her own higher nature by pur- 
suing too eagerly the career of literary productive- 
ness. The peril of diverting the whole forces of life 
to thought and expression, even in the highest form 
of art, can hardly be exaggerated. The hypertro- 
phy of genius may be the atrophy of the soul. 
Along with this, in her case was the equal peril of 
coming to depend on being loved rather than on 
loving. Certainly she was loving and magnanimous 
by all her original instincts ; but think of the possi- 
ble perversion which might result from living long 
in the atmosphere of adulation, where every wish 
was anticipated and every condition shaped so as to 
supply her a maximum of attentions and leave a 
minimum of opportunity for everything except self- 
culture and self-expression. -What an excuse for 
marrying — that one is losing the power to love ! 

Many persons far inferior to George Eliot in in- 
tellectual resources have yet found unfailing support 
agai;ist the pressure of loneliness and bereavement 
in the spiritual powers and hope and trust stored up 
in the interior of their life. May it be possible that 
her entire loss of faith in any Power above the 
human intellect and will, along with her inability to 
hope for anything beyond this little life, had left her 
inadequately supported from within ? Here was rich 
culture, noble activity, generous sentiment, stern 



34 George Eliofs Two Marriages 

ethical quality, fidelity to the highest accepted 
standard : here also was honesty of disbelief. If 
there could have been true restful trust in a Perfect 
Providence above and within her life and all life, and 
in a larger destiny than what she calls " this troub- 
lous little planet " allows to humanity, might she 
have been spared the sombre and unsatisfying ele- 
ment in her own history, and might we have missed 
the mournful music — the pensive minor key — which 
runs through her books, her letters, her character? 

She could not help feeling that her heart and soul 
were failing with her flesh. She was sincerely un- 
able to belie\'e in any God but Humanity. In 
Humanity she did believe with all her might; and 
Humanity she sought to serve " with clear-eyed en- 
deavor," and with the consecration of her splendid 
powers. And in her last days she could turn only 
to Humanity, — alas, as weak as herself! 

If, alas! this were all there is for any of us, we 
might still have grace to make the best of it ; and 
since we could depend on this to last as long as we 
do, we should need no "opium" to help us bear 
our lot to the hastening end. But should we then 
pity or envy those " deluded " ones whose spirits 
seem to triumph over the crumbling form, as they 
cry out, " My flesh and my heart fail ; but God is 
the strength of my life and mty portion forever!" 



PRESS OF GEORGE H BUCHANAN AND COMPANY 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

lllliiliMIIIII II lllllllllliiiiiiii 



014 491 832 



